HomeMy Public PortalAbout20130109 - Board of Appeals - Meeting MinutesRECEIVED TOWN OF HOPKINTON
OFFICE OF 2013tlp.R28 fJ 8:29BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN HALL
18 MAIN STREET -THIRD FLOOR
HOPKINTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01748-3209
(508) 497-0012
RORY WARREN, Chairman WWW.HOPKINTON.ORG
O. MICHAEL PEIRCE, Vice Chairman ZBA@Hopkintonrna.gov
TINA M. ROSE, Clerk
Minutes of the
Board of Appeals
Minutes: January 9, 2013 Called to Order: 7 :05 PM
Town Hall, 2nd Floor Adjourned: 9:00 PM
Members Present: RoJ)' Warren, Chairman; Michael Peirce, Vice Chairman; Tina Rose, Clerk; June
Clark; Kelly Knight
Members Absent: Michael DiMascio; John Savignano
Others Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting; Michael Shepard,
Assistant Building Inspector
7:05PM Administrative Session ofthe Board of Appeals
Bills
Mr. Peirce moved to pay the December 3, 2012 bill in the amount of $246.00 to Fay, Spofford &
Thorndike, LLC for Professional Services rendered for Peppercorn Village from the 53G account. The
motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Documents Used:
Requestfor Payment dated January 9, 2013for Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, LLC
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of August 22,2012. Ms. Rose moved to adopt the minutes of August
22,2012. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
The Board reviewed the minutes of September 26, 2012. Ms. Rose moved to adopt the minutes of
September 26, 2012 with changes. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Documents Used:
Draft minutes ofAugust 22,2012
Draft minutes ofSeptember 26,2012
37 Fruit Street -Hopkins
Members Voting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Peirce, Ms. Rose, Ms. Clark, Ms. Knight
Ms. Rose stated the request is to run a landscaping business in a residential zone as an accessory use to
the residential use. Mr. Shepard explained the bylaw and its intentions. He stated this is the opportunity
for the Board to put conditions on the business which could include random inspections. Ms. Rose stated
she is troubled with the definition. Mr. Peirce stated in his opinion this is a relatively unique site and
there are a number of facts here. He suggested that the Board draft a decision and then review it at the
next meeting and vote on it. He reminded the Board that this is the applicant's livelihood. He stated he
would be willing to consider a proposed decision with a number of conditions. The Board discussed a
proposed draft. Ms. Knight asked what the difference is from when the Board denied this without
prejudice the first time. Mr. Peirce stated he found the site walk very illuminating. He stated some ofthe
uses and stockpiling have been eliminated. He asked if there are any set of conditions that could cause
the Board to conclude the business to be viewed as an accessory. Mr. Warren stated the Board has the
opportunity now to limit this business. Ms. Rose read the landscaping definition.
Mr. Peirce moved to craft a drafted proposed decision with the condition that this motion is in no way
saying it is granted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rose and passed unanimously.
Mr. Peirce proposed a finding for the draft decision that the property is relatively unique with respect to
the size and has some history of use for non-residential accessory purposes. He stated it has a significant
grade change and the other side abuts Town ofHopkinton Water Department property.
Mr. Peirce proposed some of the following conditions: That the plan is recertified in 12 months to
confirm consistency. Incorporate the vehicles that they have proposed. Wholesale or retail sales and
services are prohibited. No processing ofwood products. All unregistered vehicles are prohibited. There
will be no vehicle maintenance or repairs done on the property. Incorporate their conditions. They install
screening by July 1, 2013 and that it is continually maintained. Retired vehicles will be permanently
removed from the site. The hours of operation are 7am to 7pm Monday through Friday and 8am to 4pm
on Saturday. Random inspections may be done by the Director of Municipal Inspections during business
hours without notice. They always be in full compliance with the Order of Conditions. They must
combine the lots and record the plan. Each year they file a certification that the owner of the business
resides on the property. There be no idling of trucks. Mr. Shepard suggested a condition that a traffic
management plan be submitted.
Santuary Lane
Mark O'Hagan
Steve Burke -Representative ofthe Board ofTrustees
Kathleen Novak Property Manager
Peggy Barton -Homeowner
Mr. Peirce asked it Mr. Burke was familiar with the proposal to eliminate the community building. Mr.
Burke stated yes. Ms. Novak stated they had a general discussion about the building in March. Mr.
Peirce asked ifthe idea of replacing the community building with a garden put on the agenda. Ms. Novak
stated no it was done by email in May. Mr. Peirce asked if the distribution list covers 100% of the
owners. Ms. Novak stated yes and that they asked for their feedback if they wanted the building or not.
Mr. Peirce asked what the dimensions of the original building were. Mr. O'Hagan stated 18' x 34'. Ms.
Burke stated there were a lot of communications. Mr. Warren stated the Board just needs to decide if this
is a substantial change or not. Mr. O'Hagen stated that if the residents wanted to see this building they
would have built it. Ms. Barton stated she is not here because she did not like the outcome but because
she would like to see a fair process. She stated all the votes stemmed from a lack of understanding. She
stated it should have been decided as a community and not in isolation. Mr. Peirce asked Ms. Barton
Board ofAppeals
January 9,2013
Page 2 of3
what the document sent out on May 16th didn't tell people. Ms. Barton stated it was just a gap of
communication.
Mr. Peirce moved to determine that eliminating the community building is not a substantial change and
that a public hearing is not required. The motion was seconded by Ms. Clark and passed 4-1 with Ms.
Knight voting no.
Documents Used:
October 23, 2012 letter from Sanctuary Lane with attached plan
December 10, 2012 letter from Peggy Barton of13 Sanctuary Lane
January 3, 2013 letter from Sanctuary Lane with supporting documents
Zoning Advisory Committee
Mr. Peirce stated that ZAC has had discussions ofproposing to take the special permit process of
drive-up windows from the Board ofAppeals and give it to the Planning Board since they
already have to address the site plan. He stated he has held his opinion with ZAC. Mr. Warren
stated he agrees that the Planning Board could do it and that it would help streamline the process.
Ms. Rose asked what other towns do. Ms. Lazarus stated it varies by town. Ms. Rose stated she
does not have a problem with the Planning Board doing it.
Ms. Rose moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Meeting Adjourned: 9:00 PM
Adina Wright, Administrative Assistant
Board of Appeals
January 9,2013
Page 3 on
Clerk's Certification
These minutes were adopted by the Board ofAppeals on March 27 ,2013 with the
following vote:
In favor: R. Warren, M. Peirce, T. Rose, J. Clark, K. Knight
Opposed:
Abstaining: J. Savignano
Attest.
A true copy:
'~~ JxLA-~
Tina M. Rose, Clerk: